R.Ramesh Kumar v. D.Balaji
22.04.2025 Sl. No.01 CP CPAN/009/2019 IN WPCT/149/2018 WITH CAN/106/2019 R. RAMESH KUMAR VS.
D. BALAJI & ANR.
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .....for the Applicant.
Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ....for the alleged contemnors.
1. CAN 106 of 2019 is an application for recalling of the order dated January 15, 2019, passed in WPCT 149 of 2018. The said application for recalling was treated as an affidavit-inopposition to the contentions of the writ petitioner/applicant in contempt application.
2. Mr. Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant, since his retirement, has been suffering irreparable loss and injury at the hands of the alleged contemnors on account of the flagrant violation and non-compliance of the order of the Division Bench which was passed in WPCT No. 149 of 2018 on January 15, 2019.
3. The judgment and order dated June 22, 2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 351/100/2016 was assailed in the writ petition. The learned tribunal had disposed of the original application by directing the authorities to consider the supplementary affidavit filed by applicant as a representation and if the contentions of the applicant were found to be correct and valid, necessary action was directed to be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. It was made clear that the consideration should be in accordance with the amended recruitment rules notified on March 31, 2016.
4. The applicant challenged the said order on the ground that he was entitled to grade pay of Rs.8700/- on and from the date of promotion to the post of senior architect, i.e. January 24, 2011 by taking into consideration the length of his service rendered as an architect on ad hoc basis from May 2, 2000 in the scale of pay of Rs.10000-325-15200 and upon further regular appointment being given as an architect on May 16, 2008 in the pay band No. 3. The Division Bench framed an issue as to whether the grade pay as claimed should be given with effect from the date of promotion to the post of senior
architect when the applicant was officiating in the promotional post. Further issue was, whether the direction of the tribunal upon the authority to consider the case, was justified or not.
5. Considered the submissions. When the O.A. was disposed of, applicant had already completed 10 years of service in the grade pay of Rs.6600/-. It was contended that the applicant was entitled to the grade pay of Rs.8700/-, but the tribunal did not consider such fact and mechanically relegated matter to authority.
6. This Court took note of the fact that the applicant had been promoted to the post of senior architect on a regular basis vide order No.4230 dated November 24, 2011, by Deputy Secretary, PWD, UD in pay band no. 3. The Court also took note of the grievance of the applicant that, the pay scale of senior architect was to be upgraded to the scale of Rs.14300-18300 (pre revised) from the existing scale of pay of Rs.1200016500 (pre revised). Such upgradation to the scale of pay of Rs.14300-18300 could be allowed as the applicant had completed 13 years of total service in the Group 'A' category.
7. The relief sought for by the applicant before the tribunal, was a direction upon the respondent
no. 4 therein to amend the note in Schedule 11 of the amended notified Recruitment Rules dated March 31, 2016, for the post of senior architect under the respondent no. 7 therein, by incorporating the applicant who had already possessed 10 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.6600/- or five years in the regular service in the grade pay of Rs.7600/-, as an eligible candidate for upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.8700/-. The note mentioned in Schedule only allowed those existing incumbents to the post, who possessed 10 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.6600 including any service rendered in the grade pay of Rs.7600/- to be eligible for upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.8700/-. The prayer was not granted in the O.A. The applicant preferred WPCT/149/2018 before a Division Bench of this Court.
8. Upon perusal of the records, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the fact that the applicant completed 10 years of service in the grade pay of Rs.6600/- in the year 2011, he should be entitled to an upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.8700/-.
9. It was also the opinion of this Court that when an employee was regularized in a promotional post, who had been officiating in
promotional post in the higher rank on ad hoc basis, his regularization in the higher post should be from the date of officiation in the promotional post. Upon the reasons which were discussed by this Court, it was directed that the respondent no. 4 and 7 therein, should consider the case of the applicant sympathetically for the grant of grade pay of Rs.8700/- from the date of his promotion to the post of senior architect, i.e. from November 24, 2011.
10. The alleged contemnor disposed of the matter on April 2, 2019 by passing a reasoned order. According to authority, as per Recruitment Rules notified on March 31, 2016, the case of the applicant was considered and recommended for grant of grade pay of Rs.8700/- with effect from May 16, 2018, after he completed 10 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.6600/-, including service rendered in the grade pay of Rs.7600/-. The case of applicant had already been considered and an order dated September 18, 2018 had been passed by the Chief Engineer with the approval of the competent authority, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
11. The authority stated that the Recruitment Rules notified on March 31, 2016, for the post of senior architect was amended, in continuation to the said order dated December 5, 2014, passed by the Chief Engineer cum Secretary, PWD in terms of the order dated March 20, 2014, passed by the CAT in O.A. 75/AN/2013.
At the relevant point of time, the applicant did not raise any objection against the said order dated December 5, 2014.
12. Therefore, while considering the case of the applicant, it was found that the grade pay of Rs.8700/- with effect from November 24, 2011 could not be granted since the Recruitment Rules notified on March 31, 2016, did not have any provision for such payment and recommendation for payment of grade pay of Rs.8700/- was already made on May 16, 2018.
13. According to Mr. Kumar, the said order was passed in violation of the direction of this Court as this Court had observed that in most cases, when a person officiates in a promotional post, regularization should be from the date he starts officiating in the promotional/higher rank.
14. Under such circumstances, directions were passed upon the authority to consider the case of the applicant in a sympathetic manner, upon taking into consideration the observations and
findings of this Court, that, the applicant should be entitled to the upgraded grade pay from November 2011.
15. First and foremost, we are of the view that although the Court had directed a sympathetic consideration, no specific directions were given upon the authority to grant such upgraded pay. Secondly, the reasoned order which has been passed elaborately discusses how the applicant had not raised any objection against the order dated December 5, 2014 of the authority which was issued pursuant to the order dated March 20, 2014 of the CAT in O.A. 75/AN/2013. The Recruitment Rules were notified on March 31, 2016, which was amended in continuation of the speaking order dated December 5, 2014. On such ground the applicant was not allowed any benefit as was directed. The alleged contemnors were of the opinion that the applicant had not revealed the correct state of affairs before the Division Bench.
16. The correctness of the order passed by the authority is not a subject matter of the contempt. In a contempt application, the Court is required to analyse and assess whether there has been deliberate and wilful violation of the directions of the Court. In our opinion, the standard of proof to establish contempt is
beyond reasonable doubt.
The allegations against the applicant in the reasoned order is that the applicant had not brought certain orders and decisions to the notice of the Division Bench, when the order was passed in the writ petition, directing a sympathetic consideration. However, we do not wish to comment either on the validity of the order passed or on the submissions made by Mr.
Chakraborty with regard to the suppression of certain material facts before the High Court.
17. We dispose of the contempt application granting liberty to the applicant to challenge the decisions taken by authority in an appropriate forum. All points are left open to be raised by the respective parties. The contempt proceedings are dropped. Rule, if any, is discharged.
18. With the disposal of the contempt application, all connected interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
19. The fact that the applicant was pursuing his remedy before the High Court, shall be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation in any future proceeding that may be initiated by the applicant.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)